The famous Canadian science fiction writer Robert J. Sawyer recently wrote an article published in the Ottawa Citizen titled 'Unhealthy Skepticism'. I suggest you read his article before reading my post because my post is a response.
Dear Mr. Sawyer,
In your article 'Unhealthy Skepticism' published in today's Ottawa Citizen, you criticize the modern skepticism movement's treatment of religion. A lot of what you criticize, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Darwin fish for example, are reactions created by the skeptical community to the creationism and intelligent design movement. As Canadians, it is difficult for us to appreciate the struggle that our American friends to the south have to deal with when trying to keep pseudo science out of the classroom. There have been many techniques that have been attempted, and the technique of ridicule (which you obviously distaste) can be valid in many situations. It's fine and dandy for people to have religious beliefs (no matter how silly or wrong) as long as it remains a private affair, but as soon as they try to force it on the public (like in the American science class, or the Pledge of Allegiance), it becomes open to criticism.
Unfortunately, reasonable criticism may not be enough. It is very difficult to reason a person out of a belief when they did not use reason to get into that belief. The best success story that I can think of is described in the book Freakonomics. The Ku Klux Klan was not driven to near extinction by convincing their members that 'racism is wrong' (which any rational person would agree with), but by revealing their secrets on the Adventures of Superman radio show. When the Klan members came home, they saw their kids playing "Superman vs. the Klan", and using their silly secret phrases. Most members were so embarrassed that they stopped attending meetings. Now, thanks to ridicule, the Klan is a joke.
I do not mean to imply that Christians are like the Klan, just that ridicule is sometimes the best method to combat irrational ideas.
I don't blame Skeptics for suddenly viewing religion, in general, as a threat. Books like Sam Harris' 'The End of Faith' make a convincing argument that religion, even moderate religion, is detrimental to modern secular society.
Does religion, in general, jeopardize our ability to conduct scientific research? If so, what is the best method to combat its negative influence? Some choose ridicule, some choose reason, and sometimes a careful combination of the two. Which method is most effective? If ridicule is most effective, is it ethical? Does the end justify the means? It is very difficult to ridicule bad ideas, when those ideas are cherished by many people. I do not think that if an idea is a religious one, it should be protected from ridicule for fear of offending someone. The fear of offence can limit our ability to question reality.
Also, I agree with your distaste for the term 'Brights'. I don't use it personally to describe myself since I think that people view me as arrogant enough already. I can only respond by saying that the 'Bright' movement has lost a lot of steam in the skeptical community. Most skeptics, I find, prefer the term 'Secular Humanism', myself included.
Update: Austin Cline at atheism.about.com gave a great rebuttal to Mr. Sawyer's article, he even quotes me!
5 comments:
Yay blog! Blogger though... yucky! Wordpress.com bro.
Anyways, blogs are great. I'm going to call you about that 360 soon!
I'm not a big fan of wordpress. I like google stuff, to each his own.
Gonna get the elite 360?
Prior to the Superman things:
Decline
The second Klan collapsed partly as a result of the backlash against their actions and partly as a result of a scandal involving David Stephenson (at the time a member of the Republican Party, after previous active membership in the Socialist Party and then in the Democratic Party), the Grand Dragon of Indiana and fourteen other states, who was convicted of the rape and murder of Madge Oberholtzer in a sensational trial (she was bitten so many times that one man who saw her described her condition as having been "chewed by a cannibal"). According to historian Leonard Moore, at the heart of the backlash to the Klan's actions and the resulting scandals was a leadership failure which caused the organization's collapse:[53]
“ Stephenson and the other salesmen and office seekers who maneuvered for control of Indiana's Invisible Empire lacked both the ability and the desire to use the political system to carry out the Klan's stated goals. They were disinterested in, or perhaps even unaware of, grass roots concerns within the movement. For them, the Klan had been nothing more than a means for gaining wealth and power. These marginal men had risen to the top of the hooded order because, until it became a political force, the Klan had never required strong, dedicated leadership. More established and experienced politicians who endorsed the Klan, or who pursued some of the interests of their Klan constituents, also accomplished little. Factionalism created one barrier, but many politicians had supported the Klan simply out of expedience. When charges of crime and corruption began to taint the movement, those concerned about their political futures had even less reason to work on the Klan's behalf. ”
As a result of these scandals, the Klan fell out of public favor in the 1930s and withdrew from political activity. Grand Wizard Hiram Evans sold the organization in 1939 to James Colescott, an Indiana veterinarian, and Samuel Green, an Atlanta obstetrician, but they were unable to staunch the exodus of members. The Klan's image was further damaged by Colescott's association with Nazi-sympathizer organizations, the Klan's involvement with the 1943 Detroit Race Riot, and efforts to disrupt the American war effort during World War II. In 1944, the IRS filed a lien for $685,000 in back taxes against the Klan, and Colescott was forced to dissolve the organization in 1944.
Source
Post a Comment